Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire How much land do the feds own in your state?

100% not allowed here. Makes it even better as few go deep into the land afoot.
Quiet time.

Welfare, solvency?
Look at this ,
Laffin...

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Or this

We don't care one bit. I don't have to PAY $3,000-$6,000 every year to lease somewhere to hunt. Out here it's every resident's game animals, not The King's game like in TX. I like being able to hunt for weeks and not have to touch private property, except to buy gas and groceries.

It ain't just about hunting but taking the family on a camping trip without having to book a "camp ground" a year in advance to only be azzholes to elbows when there.

I don't know about other states, but in Louisiana, your risking your life by hunting on the state and federally owned lands.

National Forest (federal) and Game Management Areas (state) are places where the city hunters gather. I've hunted on some of these lands, years ago, and I wont go back.

Its sad, but if you want quality hunting in La., you either own the land or lease it.

If you noticed on one of the charts, there is .3 acre of state/federal hunting land per person. I know every person does not hunt, but there are a lot that do.

Why is it that of the 30 or so states that don't have hardly any public land, everyone always lands on Texas with statements like that?

"King's game"...? Is Oklahoma or Kansas deer hunting different that Texas?

Can I just go anywhere I want and start deer hunting for free, without getting the "King's Permission" anywhere but Texas?

FWIW, the deer belong to, and are managed and regulated by the state in Texas. Just like any other state.

Here are some charts showing population, land area, and population density by state: CHARTS
The last chart is population density (people/sq mile). The few states at the bottom engulf the vast majority of land in the US but only a small fraction of the people.

This information starts to complete the picture of the chart posted by 700LH.

It's not only a matter of which state gets what "tax money"... But which states are CONTRIBUTING to tax dollars in a positive way.

Please continue.

Well, I'll try.

You have two states... Both the same exact area.

One state has 2 million people in it. The other has 20 million people in it.

The state with 20 million people in it has very low unemployment. Most everyone works. Most everyone pays taxes. Not many on welfare as a living. That state also has a tax base of private property.

The other state is mostly comprised of public land, where no tax base exists. The state also has high unemployment, and most of the residents are on welfare or food stamps of some sort.

Now, they rank the states and the two states are equal in tax dollars received.

That number doesn't show the whole picture.

Point of order: the big yellow chunk of the Adirondacks in NY is not all state land; much of the area within the "boundary" line is privately owned. One of my new favorite places to canoe and camp. Many free campsites; I can make a 1400 mile RT and save much more vs paying for State Park camping in VA.

Unless you include AK where the feds promised a serious chunk of land to the State at Statehood... things most other newer states got like land set aside for colleges and other educational pursuits, and freedom to manage the State as other states do.

Instead they gave us ANCSA and ANILCA and the finger when we asked for the promised land... which has still not been delivered. And then they capped that by taking over management of game on Fed lands...

For its part the State through Gov. Tony POS Knowles dropped a lawsuit (Katie John) at the last minute at SCOTUS... we were well and truly screwed...

One of the major contributing factors to the amount of federal land in the west is lack of water. It was available for homesteading but wasn't taken because there's no water. Idaho, for example,has millions of acres that actually could be good farmland but with under 7" of rainfall, it can't grow anything other than sagebrush.
There's also a whole lot of it that's too rocky and mountainous to use for much. It's just not suitable for becoming a tax base.

Here is a chart for those that continue complaining that their state has to "pay" for public land in the west.




http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

If public land is welfare land, does that make a public road a welfare road? Is the interstate highway a welfare highway? The local baseball field a welfare field?

If you are a federal taxpayer and pay your fair share, then the federal land is partly yours. Your tax dollars are paying for it.

I do know I see a ton of Pennsylvania, Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Texas plates on the backroads here in the west during the hunting season, and good for them, they are part owners just like we locals are!!

Best,

Chet

I wonder what that chart would look like if they left out military bases.

Several way to do a chart, but the bottom line is, guys here at the fire complaining they have to pay for public land, when the state they live in takes more federal dollars that it gives.

Public roads are paid for largely by gasoline and fuel taxes by those that use them the most.

Should we consider getting the same system for hunting public lands?

In states that have more public than private lands, usually the biggest employer is also "government" of some sort.

The counties up here are supposed to get PILT money to make up for the pleasure of having so much federal land.

That has dried up pretty well in the last couple of years.

In Montana at least, I am not sure the "school section" program even makes money.

Always ticks me off that my county has all the federal land and the county over west has the BLM office.